how is this philosophy?
I see you still live.
MANZIER!!!
Dr. Sin and DJ Zepp made the best posts of the thread. Hell, the best posts on this page.
Signature worthy.
edit:double post, pardonnez moi just added a sig.
Dr. Sin and DJ Zepp made the best posts of the thread. Hell, the best posts on this page.
Signature worthy.
Speaking in the world where one does not wish to date said female in your group, I see no reason why she should not be one of the bros. Because she will still have been totally your friend first before this said ho you are dating came into the picture. The relationship you have with the female bro is just as strong a bond as with the male bros. So I see no reason why she could not use the bros before hos doctrine.
Course having no friends I would consider bros and having not been in the situation for awhile where I have a ho, this is purely from how I understand the situation to be based on your first post.
Yeah, purely female social circles are more akin to having CIA-grade protocols than the more simplistic ‘Bb4H’ one. Those who do not follow protocol are ostracized and/or taken out with poison-laced lipgloss. Which is why I usually only hang out with guys. I hate lipgloss.
Sure, that’s why you hang out with a bunch of dudes.
Trill, you need to attempt to invoke Bros Before Hos if it comes up in your group. See if you get weird looks. Call it a social experiment.
Then again, going to the mere application of Bros Before Hos… Is it a hard, fast rule? Must it be followed if someone in the group attempts to invoke it? I tend to say no. I think of it as less of a hard rule and more of a reminder saying “Dude, come on, be cool.” Then again, I’ve been very lax in my assertion of Bros Before Hos; there have been many cases where I have merely said “I waive rights to Bros Before Hos.” If it is a hard rule, it gets broken all the time. I guess it really is just a reminder, a way of guilting the dude without being womanly about it.
Also, how many people need to claim it in a group to try and invoke it? In a group of three, I can see one person asserting it, and it would have some force behind it. After all, half of the other bros feels it’s necessary to assert. In a group of four, I still see one assertion as being fairly forceful. Let’s say it’s a group of seven though. That leaves six potential people to assert BB4H. If only one person tries to assert it, it doesn’t carry as much force in my mind. Then again, if someone asserts it then another seconds it, I think it carries more weight (or as much weight as the Doctrine can). So, do a certain percentage of the Bros have to assert the Doctrine for it to have force, or does one assertion carry as much weight regardless of the number of Bros?
I would argue against “bros before hoes,” but you specifically said not to do that.
But given your argument, it would largely depend on the wording.
Argument 1:
I. Agape is more valuable than eros.
II. Friendship depends on agape.
III. Romantic relationships depend on eros.
Therefore- Friendship is more valuable than romantic relationships.
If we are given this argument, then of course a female can be a “bro,” because you have agape for her, rather than eros. Given the premises of the argument, it fits the conclusion.
However, if your argument is the sexist varient, where male relationships are inherently superior (just ask Plato), then clearly you could not consider a female a “bro,” and she would automatically be considered to have “ho” status. I won’t even write that argument out, because I find it without merit.